Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[flabort]

To the ~3 people questioning why I said ZU has strong cases I was awed by his/her s posts in a row that were flooded with content, and made a decision based on that. His/her other posts haven't held such strong cases, but the longer posts are strong.

[flabort]

Hi, everyone. Sorry I couldnt get on today, I have an awful stomach flu right now.

Blech. Get well soon, I have someone in my family who gets nauseus quite often, and I know from watching him that stomach bugs are not fun in the slightest.

[zombie urist]

Who got converted if there is a cult?

[flabort]

Jim thinks it's Toaster, but I think Toaster is the leader. I think, if Jim wasn't already part of it, then Jim, otherwise then Toony or maybe Sheep, I don't know.

That's assuming that it is a converting cult, which there's a 50% chance of it being. We won't know until after we lynch someone or after tonight.

[Jim Groovester]

Jim Groovester: Why are you putting so little effort into your Persus13 case?  Do you have any comments on Persus's second Day 1 defense against your accusations?  Is there a reason your vote is still on him?

I've been considering moving my vote for a while now because there are people who are getting scummier and neither Persus13 nor anybody else is showing any signs of caring about it and Persus13 has not really done anything else I consider voteworthy either before or since, but I haven't made a decision about that yet. I am inclined to vote TheWetSheep, but Toaster is voting him, and as I mentioned in my reads I think Toaster may have been converted, so that's making me wary of the vote.

Regarding Persus13's defense, he dropped the vote after I brought up the reasons I did. I find it difficult to believe that he missed that stuff when he considered his vote, hence why I think it's a lazy scum vote, and I believe I mentioned somewhere that I found his previous answers to my queries evasive as well. This is nothing new. That he dropped the vote doesn't change what I think about him casting it in the first place.

[Hapah]

Quick post

NQT

Hapah

I don't think it's great, but lemme ask you a question. If anybody else - anybody else - had been acting the way he's been acting, do you think they'd get off for free like he has? With the fishy smelling claim and the blatant vote-under-pressure after someone (you?) called him on it. The fact that he matches the sage's info well enough is just gravy. I understand cutting the new guys some slack, but dang.

He's all over the place and making enemies like it's going out of fashion and you know who doesn't typically act like that? Scum.

What are you talking about? He's sitting on his hands, not making enemies.

Jack

*Tiruin/Hapah: Tiruin, who is usually quite careful with her vote, made a mid-Day 1 Toaster vote based purely on a disagreement over how survivors act.  An odd move for anyone, and quite an odd move for Tiruin.  She later voted for IG based on his claim.  Her activity, while high in quantity of posts, was primarily during the high-speed parts of day 1.  Mostly, she was just getting what she could in while awaiting a replacement.  Nothing wrong there except a troubling Toaster vote.

Hapah... is sort of here.  A bit.  Understandably, he had a bit of trouble pulling reads together immediately.  Less understandably, he eventually decided to vote for IG for some reason several days after replacing in.  Apparently, IG's a useless hypocrite and his claim is fishy.  The attack is vague and key points are left completely unexplained.  Hapah's also showing quite a bit of nervousness about actually lynching Guardsman.  Troubling, especially this close to the end of the day.

Conclusion: Tiruin wasn't acting quite right, and Hapah's not doing his job.  Low-moderate scum read.

I'm happy to explain anything you want, but I don't know what you're referring to in the underlined bit.

Hapah: What is it about Guardsman's claim that is fishy?  Do you think he is a third party?  Do you have any other suspects?

Several things, probably, and yes but I'd rather focus on IG right now.

Concerning the claim, most of it is in that post of mine that you linked. I'll stick it below for your viewing pleasure.

IG

IG: Why were those magical resources that you needed protected, why couldn't you access them without bloodshed? If you don't know, ask Meph and get back to me.

They were extremely powerful.

So, just to make sure I've got this right: you killed a man to steal artifacts of great power, came to a font of magical power (the leyline) which you claim also has ties to the Cult, and you plan to use what I can only assume is unstable blood magic to open a portal to the realm of a sleeping god. And once this is done, you plan to kill it somehow? With flabort's help, I believe you said: but I imagine the sage as a weak old man with no magic powers. How's that gonna work?

Its a sleeping, depowered god. Me and flabort can kill it easily.

And what's he gonna do, run over with with a Rascal? Hit it with his cane? Do you even know that he'd help you? Your claim keeps smelling worse the more I think about it.

Read my summary and think about it. I mean really read it and think about it, not just skim it and file it away. Does it sound right to you? That he steals powerful magical artifacts, heads to a leyline, uses blood magic to open some kind of hellrift to a slumbering god, and then is going to kill it with the help of a feeble old man? He hasn't explained how he's gonna kill it, he hasn't explained why he needs flabort to help him fight it. He doesn't even know that flabort would help, and flabort doesn't know a thing about it. Does it sound right? At best he's holding something back.

I don't think he could fabricate the entire thing, but I do think he's capable of altering it. Out of time more later tonight.

[flabort]

Well, "feeble old man" is up for debate. Yeah, you'd think someone who spends their life gleaning knowledge from books and stars may be pretty feeble and old, so it's maybe implied, but not specified. I might be a pretty young Sage who runs every morning to maintain a spartan mindset. IG's claimed flavor says I'm a descendant of a warrior, but doesn't say my age or physical status either.

Flavorwise, I guess I don't know about the plans, or I didn't until IG claimed them. Which could translate to him talking with me in a big public square about it.

Otherwise what you say about the claimed flavors so far is correct. And they make sense. When have you read a book about a magician who was purely on the straight and narrow? Unless they live a very boring life, they tend not to walk the pure straight and narrow. So if he's done some sketchy things in his flavor, it's justified by being a magician out for the greater good.

I'm not sure I can justify flavorwise how his goal changes if I die. It would depend on what kind of goal he gets if I die.

[Jack A T]

Hapah: I think I missed that part when reading.

Adjustment: Strike that vague stuff.  The attack is just shit.

Look at it.  You're jumping on IG for assuming that the descendant of the great warrior who fought the evil god, the descendant who is to come along and help open the portal, would help fight the god.  You're explicitly depending on your imagination as an argument ("I imagine the sage as a weak old man with no magic powers").  You're explicitly assuming "unstable" blood magic.  You're attacking someone who probably got 3 or 4 sentences of role flavour (as is the norm in Supernatural) for not having details on the exact method of killing the god.  And you've made mistakes about IG's claim.  You miss the importance of flabort's blood in opening the portal to the god, and claim IG hasn't explained why flabort is necessary.


Now, please tell me who your other suspects are.

I've been considering moving my vote for a while now because there are people who are getting scummier and neither Persus13 nor anybody else is showing any signs of caring about it and Persus13 has not really done anything else I consider voteworthy either before or since, but I haven't made a decision about that yet.

Jim Groovester: Do you intend to make a final decision before the end of the day?

[Jim Groovester]

Yes.

[Toaster]

Sheep:

Toaster:

So you didn't feel the need to use your vote as a lynch vote?  Noted.

I didn't have anybody I felt certain enough to put a lynch vote on.

No lynch targets at day end?  This doesn't help your case.  Is anybody lynchworthy now?

Here are your posts since I joined with game analysis/read compilation, answers, useless stuff and clarifications removed:

I note you trimmed out the part where he actually took everyone's reads and analyzed them.  I agree that this wasn't worth a ton, but it wasn't useless.  Why do I get the feeling you're cherry-picking his posts to make him look bad?

I just read through that section of the thread twice and couldn't find what you're talking about.  Could you link it?

Okay.  See the spoiler in this post?  That's the bit where you are cherry picking.  The post in mind of NQT's that you left out is this one where he does parse the data he's been gathering.  Do you not think it's worth something?

There's no point in going after people for what's already been addressed, and people(NQT) are complaining about my lack of cases, so yes I want to find something.

Is it because you're coming up with content entirely to look busy and involved?  I think it is.

If you had nothing to go on would you try desperately to put pressure somewhere?

I'd reread until I found something noteworthy, or pick someone and grill them until something shook out.  I wouldn't just invent something and call it a day.

PPE:Toaster:

TheWetSheep is doing everything he can to avoid being in the limelight and not commit; the kind of behavior I expect from a cult leader.

You mean like not posting on a weekend?

I can grant not posting on a weekend if your weekday material is solid.  It isn't, and this includes this latest post of yours.


NQT:  Let me boil down the issue this way:

The plausible possibilities are: Cult OR Necromancer+Scum who were protected against.

I don't see why "Cult + Necromancer" isn't a possibility.  The entire Necromancer/Ghoul issue is totally irrelevant to the nature of the main scum team, yet you seem to be insistent that it matters.


Since it's the Cool Kid thing to do now, have some reads.

Scum:  (All reads vaguely in order from strongest scum to strongest town)

Sheep.  I've said why several times.
NQT, for stated oddities in his actions.  There's also something in my gut that tells me the work he's doing is more objective than subjective (and therefore frees him from having to come up with his own opinions and views.)
Toony, for well out of meta behavior, and his sub-standard cases.
ZU is creeping up on my scumometer, largely because he refuses to explain why he thinks NQT is third party.  I won't oppose to his lynch.
Flabort... he could just be new and flailing.  I don't know any more.

Neutral:

Hapah.  His new player protection has run out, and I'd like to see some solid cases from him soon.
Persus, for weak activity and threatening to invoke Toaster's #1 Outdated Scumtell.
Ottofar.  His effort is passable.

Town:

Jim, for a weak start that's getting better.
Jack, for his strong activity from D1.
Toaster, for his incredibly manly chin.


IG is just completely off the spectrum.

[Hapah]

You're explicitly depending on your imagination as an argument ("I imagine the sage as a weak old man with no magic powers").

Flabort said he wasn't magical himself, you know. And I think characterizing the Sage as a frail man is reasonable. Who doesn't think of someone like Deckard Cain when they think Sage?

You're explicitly assuming "unstable" blood magic.

And IG explicitly stated that he needed flabort's blood, and also explicitly stated that his magic is unstable. If your magic is unstable and you need blood to use it, what else would you call it? It's also worth noting that he didn't try to correct me (though, y'know, IG. That doesn't say as much as it would for anyone else).

You're attacking someone who probably got 3 or 4 sentences of role flavour (as is the norm in Supernatural) for not having details on the exact method of killing the god.

How to kill a God doesn't exactly seem like the sort of thing you figure out along the way. And shit, he could just ask if he's actually got the role. But I'm thinking he wants to summon whatever it is instead of kill it, which is why his very authentic-sounding flavor claim keeps sounding worse the more he's required to tailor it.

And you've made mistakes about IG's claim.

What mistakes would those be?

You miss the importance of flabort's blood in opening the portal to the god, and claim IG hasn't explained why flabort is necessary.

No, I understand why he needs flabort's blood. I don't understand why he needs flabort to actually help him fight, though, and he keeps saying that the both of them will fight.

The one thing I will grant you is that I assumed too much about how much information a Sage's result delivers: I was going to say that the Sage result fits IG like a glove, but I'd like a little more data. That's easily corrected!

SuperNatural vets: Two parter! Could you give a couple of examples of Sage results in past games, and what they referred to? I don't even know which of the games contained Sages. Also, has there been a role in any previous SuperNat that matches or is similar to what IG has claimed thus far? Or is his role new/unique?

As for reads, they'll have to wait until tomorrow, but I'll take an early lunch to get them out. Probably sit down to work on it at 10:30 or so Central. The quick version is that I wouldn't support a lynch on Jack/Jim/Toaster, they all seem to be playing well enough. No opinion on Ottofar, he hasn't been around. Flabort has made a few questionable plays, but I think he's a new-ish player and has been grilled on them pretty well already. I don't quite understand the cases on ZU, but by the same token I don't understand the cases he's making either. NQT has ticked one of my personal scumtells a few times, but I haven't seen anything else to support them so I guess he's alright. TWS has made a couple of questionable plays but has already been taken to task for it, and I haven't seen much of Persus.

PPE: I almost forgot. Get well soon, IG!

[flabort]

Hapah He stated that the revive is unstable. I don't recall if he said that about all his magic, but he said "unstable magic" in reply to why the revive is 50%, I think. He later said that the 50% of it going WRONG is a result of gods saying "nope" to him, but I don't think he said unstable about the blood magic.

IG do you want to confirm or deny any details that Hapah's collected?

[zombie urist]

I guess it looks like I'm getting lynched. I probably won't have enough time to post tomorrow. I still don't think there's a cult. NQT is still scum, please lynch him.

Don't let Toony and Ottofar get away with being inactive. I have a feeling that Toonyman is scum. Persus probably is too. If someone got converted last night I'm pretty sure its Jack, but if Jack indeed got converted I don't think its Persus b/c its too obvious especially since Persus said Jack is a good convert target. But of course this is all WIFOM.

Refutal of ZU's Case

But to summarize lots of IIOA

Giving any kind of information appears to be too much information by ZU's standards.

Even his analysis post was a summary

It's a funny thing to call someone's analysis inadequate and use this as grounds for suspicion when they're one of the few people doing any kind of analysis at all.

no follow up on questions

Not true: I haven't followed up on every answer because it hasn't been fruitful to do this when I've asked questions of 12 other players (11 now). Still, I've followed up on every player throughout the game, something that you'd be hard pressed to say of anyone else.

super defensive

Defending oneself isn't a scumtell, especially when it's accompanied by rigorous attacks on others.

contradicted himself day 1

This is a lie. I've explained why this is a lie and if you don't want to understand that, then you're just compounding lies on lies.

didn't deny being an sk when accused

Initially I wasn't directly accused of being an SK so there was nothing to deny. This is an absurd argument.

stated another sk was unlikely but then said a necromancer was possible (487),

Yes, I didn't know about the necromancer until it was pointed out and I reread the part in the Supernatural game that had one in. When learning new information I revised my opinion.

going after inactives late in the day

Forcing players into action is pro-town.

obviously slanted language (why do you love zu so much)

One example, which was perhaps unnecessary but it seemed striking that Sheep had consistently leaped to your defence.

1. Not a defense. Giving information is fine but you haven't done much with the info.
2. Summary is not analysis.
3. All your posts follow this pattern. Asks questions to people. Defends. I don't really see much followup.
4. I haven't seen any rigorous attacks.
5. No you haven't. Please link to it so everyone can see it.
6. Calling an argument absurd doesn't make it go away.
7. Why is there a distinction b/w ghoul and necromancer? Both are SKs. You still never explained why you don't think ghoul is likely but necro is.
8. Not when theres so much more to go on and so close to day end. Calling yourself pro-town is scummy.
9. There was only one post where he did that. Does Flabort love me also?

Evil magic again points to generic cultists who sacrifice their victims and have a team kill and may or may not have a one-shot conversion.

lol.

[notquitethere]

Toaster

I made a long reply explaining the argument and exactly why ZU is making arbitrary and unhelpful assumptions.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I don't see why "Cult + Necromancer" isn't a possibility.  The entire Necromancer/Ghoul issue is totally irrelevant to the nature of the main scum team, yet you seem to be insistent that it matters.

It only matters insofar as what we should be focusing on. CULT+SK is a possibility, obviously. The reason it matters is if there's a cult then focusing on serial killers is absurd. Look, let me spell it out even more logically.

Possible Premises
A: There was no kill last night
B: There is a cult
C: There is a serial killer
D: Scum were prevented from killing
E: We should focus on killing the cult
F: A body is missing
G: There is a scum priest
H: It's OK to focus on killing SKs

Axioms:
A
IF A THEN (B OR (Not-B AND D)
F
If F THEN (C OR (Not-C AND G))
IF B THEN E
IF (Not-B AND C) THEN H
IF E then Not-H

Thus:
(Not-H AND not-D) OR (Not-B AND D)
C OR (Not-C AND G)

That's all we know. However, ZU is claiming on top of all that, without any reasoning, that:

C AND Not B

Which allows him to get to H. But there's no reason to believe in Not B over B. And if B then Not-H. Now I've laid out our disagreement axiomatically, now do you understand where I'm coming from? I'm saying that the possible existence of a serial killer doesn't mean we should focus on serial killers AND if you believe that there is a serial killer AND the we should focus on killing serial killers, then you're committed to believing in a very specific scum set-up, and there's no reason for believing in that very specific set-up. Namely, ZU is committed to:

A
Not-B
C
D
Not-E
F
G OR not-G
H

When really the evidence only supports:
A
B or Not-B
C or Not-C
D or Not-D
E or Not-E
F*
G or Not-G
H or not-H

*if we believe ZU

Now do you see how arbitrarily specific ZU is being?

I'm committed to the further view that so long as there's a possibility of a cult, we should focus on killing the possible cult (I'd have to start getting into modal logic to express this with letters though).

But then he pointed out something I'd said right at the beginning of the day:

Evil magic again points to generic cultists who sacrifice their victims and have a team kill and may or may not have a one-shot conversion.

...Which I'd promptly forgotten about in our recent spat. The possibility of a hybrid team though doesn't rule out the possibility of a full-on cult team though, and while a 100% cult is possible, focusing on hunting serial killers is still ridiculous.


ZU

1. Not a defense. Giving information is fine but you haven't done much with the info.

But I have done some things, and I've still done more than most. The burden is on you to say why this makes me scummier than anyone else right now.

2. Summary is not analysis.

But I did give an analysis of each person's read in the end. What's your point here?

3. All your posts follow this pattern. Asks questions to people. Defends. I don't really see much followup.

What am I doing right now?

4. I haven't seen any rigorous attacks.

I've pointed out why your case is baseless, of COURSE you don't see the rigorous attack.

5. No you haven't. Please link to it so everyone can see it.

RIGHT HERE.

Two different answers to basically the same questions.

NOPE. I was talking to Toaster about me bringing up the prosepective IG lynch, and then to you about bringing up the prospective Wolf lynch, which was occurred later. I can see how you'd make this mistake though.

6. Calling an argument absurd doesn't make it go away.

You have no argument. You have some unsubstantiated premises. Unfortunately, pointing this out to you doesn't seem to make you stop.

7. Why is there a distinction b/w ghoul and necromancer? Both are SKs. You still never explained why you don't think ghoul is likely but necro is.

There's been a serious misunderstanding between us here. I don't think either kind of SK is particularly likely, but both are possible.

8. Not when theres so much more to go on and so close to day end. Calling yourself pro-town is scummy.

If there's so much to go on, there isn't anything wrong with encouraging others to vote. Calling myself pro-town when i am pro-town has no bearing on my alignment one way or the other.

9. There was only one post where he did that. Does Flabort love me also?

Sheep has now done it three times. Flabort only once I think.

Evil magic again points to generic cultists who sacrifice their victims and have a team kill and may or may not have a one-shot conversion.

lol.

Sure, I'd forgotten about that. It's a possibility, yes. Still doesn't give you a case.

I don't care if you respond to the above, I just want to know:

A. Why do you think I'm more likely to be a serial killer or scum than anyone else? and B. What reason do you have for not thinking a cult likely?

On the very slim chance that you are town, why are you pressing such an obviously bullshit case?

Hapah
He's joint first with me and Ottofar for voting the most different targets throughout the game: that kind of spread of targets is the kind of enemy-making that scum tend not to do.

[Imperial Guardsman]

blub

So you are accusing me of being a http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Usurper, pretty much?